User talk:Charles lindberg

Charles lindberg, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Charles lindberg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Charles lindberg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Canadian federal election, 2011 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MordeKyle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nazi Party, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Please note that the verifiability policy mandates that unsourced material that has been challenged, such as by a "fact" tag, or by its removal, may not be added back without a reliable, published source being cited for the content, using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article, and the burden is on the person wishing to keep in the disputed material. So if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so, following these requirements! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you made changes to linking in several different articles. Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style, which includes guidelines for wikilinking. Please read through this guideline before making such edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand an edit, ask before you revert - there's probably a reason for it. In this case, linking the way you want to creates two links that look like a single link, which is unhelpful. See WP:SEAOFBLUE. The solution is either to use a single specific link or to remove one of the two links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kevin O'Leary into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject!

Hello, Charles lindberg! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House of Commons article

Hello there Charles! I've undid your edit adding the "HM" and "HM Loyal" prefixes to both the Government and Opposition titles. That is not how these are referred to using contemporary terminology. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Henry Pope (Canadian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a wider talk

I see your not interested in that talk page ...so pls see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Political infoboxes.--Moxy (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have the common courtesy to join the conversations about your edit.. If not we will have to assume WP:NOTHERE,--Moxy (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Kevin O'Leary shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Simplexity22 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Charles_lindberg reported by User:Simplexity22 (Result: ). Thank you. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You've been blocked from editing for 72 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 04:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mike Cernovich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Not a big deal but someone is complaining that you're not using edit summaries. Not something you will be blocked for....just a common courtesy. I have dismissed complaint as non-valid. WP:Edit summary.--Moxy (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. This is the second time in a week an editor has commented about this. It's a big help to other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Pls no collapsed sections in infoboxes pls...... for those with disabilities as per MOS:COLLAPSE. The community has also decided not to jam images of Random people in boxes like this...as they do not lead to any infomation. MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. --Moxy (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made is the opposite of what we are looking for collapsing the links while adding images of people that lead to noting and do not convey any information or lead to any information. Please dont go out of your way to impending navigation for our readers while trying to make thing look pretty with useless images.--Moxy (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLS FOLLOW WP:BRD Dont want to see you blocked because your not willing to talk to anyone.--Moxy (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can pls join the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Template:History of Canada sidebar--Moxy (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPC Infobox

Just wondering if either discussion took place somewhere before you edited the Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017 infobox? In the discussion section of the article it was mentioned that it would be left blank until after the election was over, which nobody disputed. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello, I'm General Ization. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Russell Peters have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 22:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People complaining all over

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. *Compare Wikipedia:Consensus*.

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

When to use:

While editing a particular page that many editors are discussing with little to no progress being made, or when an editor's concerns are not addressed on the talk page after a reasonable amount of effort.

How to proceed:

Discover the Very Interested Persons (VIP), and reach a compromise/consensus with each, one by one.

BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information.
Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a VIP.
Discuss the changes you would like to make with this VIP, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a consensus. Apply the consensus. When reverts have stopped and parties all agree, you are done.

--Moxy (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I have restored your recent edits on the American Revolutionary War. Before making changes please use the talk page. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Lloyd

Hi - Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You made a bold edit to remove an image. I reverted your edit as I thought the original image, while not perfect, was acceptable. The next stage is to enter the discuss cycle. Your action in deleting the original image again without discussion clearly breaches Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please restore the image. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As you have not been prepared to engage in discussion on this I have restored the image. If you delete it again, we can only assume you are engaged in disruptive editing. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

County Londonderry

Please refrain from changing mentions of County Londonderry to read County Derry. There has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland and the use of the term is only colloquial from the official County Londonderry. See WP:DERRY for the decisions and reasons on this. If you persist on continuing to change County Londonderry to read County Derry, this is considered disruptive editing and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McGowan's War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Why not just add the images to List of Canadian conservative leaders? Not a good idea to change the links all over to a page with less info and less ability to navigate the topic at hand. Join us Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada--Moxy (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War

You had no consenus to revert edits that expanded the given information, which was more comprehensive and informative than before. You also had no consensus, nor remit, to revert the page to your personal edits, and then demand that others obtain a consensus before editing it to add information.

Forgive me, but I do not believe you are qualified to make edits on this topic, as you questioned the validity of having the Netherlands and Mysore as co-belligerents, despite their affiliations with, and aid to, the Americans.

The edits should have been reverted to what they were before either of us started making edits, which is what I will endeavour to now do. I will then begin a discussion on the Rev War talk page to settle this non-issue. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)) RockDrummerQ (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dominion of Canada (1867–1982)

The article Dominion of Canada (1867–1982) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

PLS see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Dominion of Canada (1867–1982): Dominion of Canada (1867–1982)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. --Moxy (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

Concerning the infobox heading? Check that talkpages history & you'll see where it was already discussed. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Dominion of Canada (1867–1982)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dominion of Canada (1867–1982). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – [[:*1867–1914 *1914–1945 *1945–1960 *1960–1981 *1982–1992]]. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at [[:*1867–1914 *1914–1945 *1945–1960 *1960–1981 *1982–1992]]. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:*1867–1914 *1914–1945 *1945–1960 *1960–1981 *1982–1992|the article's talk page]].

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Moxy (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at World War II shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Given that the content of the infobox was settled after a lengthy discussion and you have been reverted, please start a new talk page discussion to propose your changes rather than try to repeatedly insert them. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/96.54.184.11, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick House

"the new major edit was done without using a single source". Really? The major edit was based on this source which is why there are numbers with brackets throughout the article. If you looked you would have seen [1] and a url under "references" (since I've added more references you'll now see [2] where the [1]s were). As for Senate Conservative Caucus, anyone can remove a PROD for any reason, it says right in the PROD paragraph.If you still want to delete the article after a PROD has been removed, you need to propose an AFD. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Moxy (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Democratic Party

Even though the provincial & territorial wings share party memberships with the federal NDP, they're still separate. Note for example, we don't list the federal NDP's House of Commons & Senate membership into the provincial/territorial NDP infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Quebecois

Howdy. I'm most displeased with your edit-warring tendencies. Please go to WP:CANADA with your concerns. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Bloc Québécois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Charles_lindberg reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are the only person who wants to limit the horizontal bar to showing only the Quebec seats. Can you reply to the edit warring report and agree to wait for consensus? Maybe you could offer to open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. Otherwise, the closing admin may be tempted to block one or more of the warring parties. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manitoba NDP

Please note that officially, the party's name is the New Democratic Party of Manitoba (see Elections Manitoba website at [1]). In any case, the reason I reverted your last edit is that it broke the link to the leadership election template meaning the list of previous leadership elections wasn't showing up. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page name for the party is Manitoba New Democratic Party, I thought that was the official name since it was the page name, I'll go ahead and change the name of the party page instead, thanks for the notifications.

Non-free image use in templates

Hi Charles lindberg. I've come across a couple of templates you created which contain non-free content. The use of non-free content such as File:Conservative Party of Canada.svg, File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg and File:Green Party logo.svg is higly restricted on Wikipedia and each of use of a non-free file must meet all 10 non-free content criteria. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#9, which states that non-free content may only be used in the article namespace. This means that non-free files cannot used (i.e., displayed) in templates or userboxes, on talk pages or other noticeboards, and on user pages or in user sanboxes. There are certain limited exceptions as explained in WP:NFEXMP, but none of them apply to the way you've been using non-free files. So, please check the licensing of an image before adding it to any pages just to make sure it's OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring tendencies

It seems I'm not alone in noticing this, judging by the comments left behind. You reverted an edit on the War of 1812 page that greatly improved the infobox from the cluttered mess it was before, citing "no consensus". You'll cite that on that page, yet you'll freely rampage through the infobox on the American Revolutionary War, which most definitely was agreed upon by consensus, making edits without obtaining a consensus, despite requests to do so, given how much the damn thing keeps getting tampered with, most of the time for the worse. You did not even participate in the vast majority of the discussion on the Rev War infobox changes; you made one snark-ridden list and vanished from the debate. Is it that you expect a different standard from others that you do not hold to yourself? (Anaruna (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

It might have been a great improvement, but no one agreed to it. Find at least one person before changing all of it. Charles lindberg (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of no consensus, I reverted your move of 10th Canadian Ministry to Ministry of Sir Robert Borden. Your move broke the existing layout of every single article on the ministry. If you aren't sure on a move, go to the talk page or ask someone next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, I noticed you had an opinion that might be relevant here, based on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add Battle of St. Lawrence - refuses to bring sources that the jack should be used over the ensign. No consensus for change but keeps hammering at it. I was going to add a new section to the talk page, but I'll just park this here. Llammakey (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Until we can sort this out, I've blocked you for an indefinite period. Your run of moves was disruptive, to say the least. There is also concern regarding the SPI I linked in my comment to EdJohnston. This is being discussed at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Elizabeth May series

Template:Elizabeth May series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CPC Infobox Ideology

Hi, I noticed you were involved in the debate over infobox ideology in the article Conservative Party of Canada. The page is currently locked because of an edit war, and no attempt has been made on the talk page to resolve this. I would to thus invite you to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Ideology so the page can be unlocked and constructive editing can continue.--Jay942942 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Andrew Scheer series

Template:Andrew Scheer series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Peterson (Canadian politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Justin Trudeau series

Template:Justin Trudeau series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Moxy (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of United Conservative Party (Canada)

The article United Conservative Party (Canada) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wrong name. Should be United Conservative Party (Alberta) at best.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]